Post: #26

Intel wanting more female representation and minority representation might be to do with economics. I mean each of these huge corporations (microsoft, intel etc) need highly skilled labour and also retain their top level talent. The amount of money wasted on hiring new staff, training them and getting them is quite expensive. The cost of H1B skilled techies might be cheaper but on a longer run its quite expensive , there are only so many people that can jump up the pyramid. So employee attrition is quite high. plus a culturally assimilated worker is more profitable than someone from a different cultural background.

This huge pool of women and minorities represent economic value if they are to be trained for their purposes. Also women represent more economic value to a company - stability , they dont switch jobs that often due to family etc (read this somewhere but dont remember exactly). For sure intel/microsoft are not going to invest 300 million without ROI. They definitely get the bang for the buck , plus brand awareness etc etc.

Post: #27

We run into this in construction. In some counties you're penalized monetarily if you don't have the "correct" proportion of women and minorities on your crews. Do you know how hard it is to find, say, a female ironworker? They often do little more than show up but know they're guaranteed future work regardless of current output. I'll never understand how people can think that hiring based on skin color or gender is a better choice than basing employment decisions on qualifications and productivity.

Might be a good time to buy stock in AMD.

Post: #28

300 million for "diversity" but meanwhile, Intel fires 1400+ from it's costa rica processing plant after closing it: http://www.qcostarica.com/intel-complete...osta-rica/

Post: #29

Gotta find that $300 mil somewhere, right?

Post: #30

Reminds me of that programming language which satirises feminism: https://github.com/ErisBlastar/cplusequality

Quote:On 1s and 0s
The traditional binary foundation of 1s and 0s is deeply problematic: 1 is inherently phallic and thus misogynistic. Also, some 1s are 0s, and some 0s are 1s. It is not fair to give them immutable labels. Instead, we have 0s and Os as our fundamental binary logic gates. They symbolise/-ize the varying, natural, and beautiful differences of the female vaginal opening.

0 is to take the conventional value of 0.

O is 50% of the time 0, and 50% of the time 1. The determination of this depends on how the underlying logic feels at the moment.

Basic language style
Anything that can be construed as misogynist will be corrected, thus:

private == privileged
printf(); == yell();
class Foo{}; == social_construct Foo{};
#include == #consider
break; == leave;
if() == check()
for() == check()
while() == check()
sin(x) == biotruth(x)
div == unite
'y's are strictly prohibited when naming variables; only 'x's are allowed
The third example above might seem to contradict with item 4 under Philosophy, namely that there should be no class hierarchy in C+=. This, however, is completely intended, and is in fact an example of the feminist paralogicality of this language.

Every program needs to be prefixed by, in addition to the license, a disclaimer: "If this program fails to operate, it is due the Patriarchy backfiring upon itself, and no refunds will be issued."

Functions and Procedures
All functions and procedures are now called lobbying, because actually doing things functionally and with clear-defined procedures is a Patriarchal construct and thus problematic.

All lobbying must be run at the right level of privilege. Before returning anything they must check their privilege.
If any other lobbying is more disadvantaged than this it will win the Privilege Check and return its own value instead. This stops heterosexist and cis-gendered lobbyings from dominating the discourse.
Should there be any exceptions from running the program, C+= will throw a Trigger Warning.

Post: #31

(01-12-2015 06:40 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  We run into this in construction. In some counties you're penalized monetarily if you don't have the "correct" proportion of women and minorities on your crews. Do you know how hard it is to find, say, a female ironworker? They often do little more than show up but know they're guaranteed future work regardless of current output. I'll never understand how people can think that hiring based on skin color or gender is a better choice than basing employment decisions on qualifications and productivity.

Might be a good time to buy stock in AMD.

You actually have quotas with women on physically demanding jobs? Never saw a woman on a site unless she had a clipboard and an escort or she was cleaning the buildings for inspection.